News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Cybercab pricing and consumer release date
Elon Musk has confirmed that Tesla does intend to sell a version of the Cybercab for less than $30,000 by 2027.
Elon Musk has confirmed that Tesla does intend to sell a version of the Cybercab for less than $30,000 by 2027. He shared the update in a post on social media platform X.
Amidst Tesla’s announcement that the first Cybercab has been produced at Giga Texas’ production line, some members of the Tesla community immediately started joking about how the milestone will affect a wager shared by popular YouTube tech reviewer Marques Brownlee (MKBHD.)
Following Tesla’s We, Robot event in October 2024, MKBHD noted that while the Cybercab was impressive in a lot of ways, he is very skeptical about Elon Musk’s estimate that the autonomous two-seater could be sold to consumers for below $30,000 around 2027.
“I think the obvious red flag, the biggest red flag to me is the timeline stuff. This is notorious Elon stuff. He gets on stage, he says we’re going to have this vehicle out for $30,000 before 2027,” he said, adding “No, they’re not. There’s just no way that they’re actually going to be able to do that. I mean, if they do, let’s say they do, I will shave my head on camera because I’m that confident.”
It was then no surprise that meme images of MKBHD with his head shaved immediately spread on X following Tesla’s announcement that the first Cybercab has been built at Giga Texas. One of these, which was posted by longtime FSD tester Whole Mars Catalog, received a response from Elon Musk. The CEO responded with the words “Gonna happen,” together with a laughing emoji.
Apart from riding jokes about MKBHD’s wager, Musk also confirmed that Tesla will be selling a Cybercab to regular consumers before 2027, and the vehicle will be priced for $30,000 or less. In response to an X user who asked if the exact scenario will be happening, Musk responded with a simple “Yes.”
While the first Cybercab has been produced at Giga Texas, it would not be surprising if the following months will only see low volumes of the autonomous two seater being produced. As per Elon Musk in previous comments, the Cybercab’s early production will likely be slow, but it will eventually be extremely fast. “For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast,” he said.
Elon Musk
First Tesla Cybercab rolls off Giga Texas production line
Tesla’s official account on X shared an image showing employees gathered around the first Cybercab built at Gigafactory Texas.
Tesla has produced the first Tesla Cybercab at Texas Gigafactory, marking a key milestone ahead of the planned autonomous two-seater’s production in April. The two-seat Robotaxi, which was unveiled in 2024, is designed without pedals or a steering wheel and represents Tesla’s most aggressive step yet toward fully autonomous mobility.
Tesla’s official account on X shared an image showing employees gathered around the first Cybercab built at Gigafactory Texas. Elon Musk echoed the milestone, writing, “Congratulations to the Tesla team on making the first production Cybercab!”
Previous comments from Musk on X reiterated the idea that production of the Cybercab “starts in April.” The vehicle will launch without traditional driver controls, and it will rely entirely on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The Cybercab is positioned to compete with autonomous services such as Waymo. While Tesla has deployed Model Y vehicles in limited Robotaxi operations in Austin and the Bay Area, a serious ramp of the service to other cities across the United States is yet to be implemented. The production of the Cybercab could then be seen as a push towards the company’s autonomy plans.
Musk has linked the Cybercab to Tesla’s proposed “Unboxed” manufacturing process, which would assemble large vehicle modules separately before integrating them, rather than following a traditional production line. The approach is intended to cut costs, reduce factory footprint, and speed up output.
That being said, Elon Musk has set expectations for the Cybercab’s production ramp. As per Musk, it would likely take some time before meaningful volumes of the Cybercab are produced because it is such a new and different vehicle. But when the vehicle hits its pace, volumes will be notable.
“Initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve. The speed of production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are. For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast,” Musk noted.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Cybercab pricing and consumer release date
First Tesla Cybercab rolls off Giga Texas production line
